Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajni Kohli vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 March, 2023
$~3 to 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2288/2022 & CRL.M.A. 19932/2022
RAJNI KOHLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Rudraksh, Ms.
Garima Singh, Ms. Mahima Malhotra
and Mr. Pratyansh Pandey, Advs.
versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr.
Aaditya Pande, Mr. Raghav Sharma,
Ms. Shakshi Goyal and Mr. Saswat
Adhyapak, Advs.
+ W.P.(CRL) 2291/2022 & CRL.M.A. 19938/2022
RAJNI KOHLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Rudraksh, Ms.
Garima Singh, Ms. Mahima Malhotra
and Mr. Pratyansh Pandey, Advs.
versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr.
Aaditya Pande, Mr. Raghav Sharma,
Ms. Shakshi Goyal and Mr. Saswat
Adhyapak, Advs.
+ W.P.(CRL) 2292/2022 & CRL.M.A. 19943/2022
RAJNI KOHLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Rudraksh, Ms.
Garima Singh, Ms. Mahima Malhotra
and Mr. Pratyansh Pandey, Advs.
versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr.
Aaditya Pande, Mr. Raghav Sharma,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANISH
DAYAL
Ms. Shakshi Goyal and Mr. Saswat
Adhyapak, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 13.03.2023
1. Pursuant to the previous order of this Court dated 15th November, 2022, both parties have filed a short note of written arguments relating to the maintainability of the present petition. Both counsels have addressed arguments as well, based on their written submissions. The limited issue which arises in relation to maintainability is that the said petition has been filed seeking quashing of notice issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C. by EOW, Mumbai in a complaint which is being investigated by EOW, Mumbai. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner as also evident from the written submissions, the only reason why cause of action is being claimed within jurisdiction if this Court is the residence of the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner also states that she had no role to play in the business activities of the accused company and was only active in a professional capacity.
2. The learned counsel for EOW, however, states that the accused company was incorporated in Mumbai and the corporate office is in Mumbai. Further, he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640 and specifically draws attention upon para 43 of the said judgment that "The place of residence of the person moving a High Court is not the criterion to determine the contours of the cause of action in that particular writ petition".
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however contends and relies Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANISH DAYAL upon several decisions of different High Courts including of Karnataka, Punjab, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi where notices issued under Section 41A and Section 160 Cr.P.C. were quashed by the Courts on the ground that the investigating agency did not have jurisdiction to issue notice to the persons situated beyond its jurisdiction. However, a perusal of Section 41A and Section 160 Cr.P.C. would indicate that while Section 160 Cr.P.C. has categorically provided that a police officer making an investigation can require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station, but is restricted from summoning certain categories of persons including women away from the place where such person resides, however, Section 41A Cr.PC. which is issued to a suspect to appear before a police officer does not have similar restrictions or prohibitions. It is ex facie evident from the language of the two provisions that the legislature was not intending to extend restrictions provided under Section 160 to Section 41A Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for EOW submits that if this were so, investigation by any agency located in another part of the country would be severely hampered by being restricted to issue notices to the accused in their territory only.
4. A perusal of the decisions of this Court which have been adverted to by the learned counsel for petitioner would also show that they are directions to quash notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which notes that the insistence of women appearing in the police station is in wholesome contravention of the proviso to Section 160 (1) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to extend the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANISH DAYAL jurisprudence of Section 160 Cr.P.C. to that of Section 41A Cr.P.C., which is not evident nor was part of the decision in Nandini Satpathy (supra).
6. Further even in Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with quashing of FIR held that any High Court within whose jurisdiction even a part of the cause of action has arisen would have territorial jurisdiction to quash an FIR. However in the present case, quashing of the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. is sought on the sole ground that the petitioner is residing in Delhi.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court the petition is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court in order to seek a remedy to challenge the said notices. However, in the event the petitioner apprehends arrest within the jurisdiction of this Court, remedies under the Cr.P.C. are available for the petitioner to pursue.
8. Petition is disposed of with the above observations.
9. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J MARCH 13, 2023/MK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANISH DAYAL